Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed by this court in A.S. No. 1200 of 1979, confirming the dismissal of the suit by the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can briefly be stated as follows: The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed the suit for a declaration that the suit properties are wakf properties and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondents/defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were formerly comprised in I.D. No. 227 and both the warams were granted to the Pallivasal of Goripalayam. Madurai, for its maintenance and upkeep and that they are wakf properties. The persons who had been in management were not competent to alienate the properties. After constitution of the Wakf Boards enquiry was made it was learnt that the suit properties were wakf properties and they were also listed in the Gazette. Since no one had instituted suit within one year from the date of Notification the character of the properties as Walk properties become conclusive and hence the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and recovery of possession. 3. The said suit was resisted by the respondents who are the defendants in the suit, mainly on the ground that the suit properties which were minor inam lands, were subject to the provisions of the Tamil nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, Act 30 of 1963 and that patta had been granted in their favour negativing the claim of the Board for such patta and that in view of the finality reached in they said proceedings, it is not open to the civil court to entertain the suit or to question the validity of the order passed under the provisions of the Act. It was also contended by the respondents that they and their predecessors have been in possession of the properties from 1900 onwards and that it was upheld by the authorities and that the suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the suit properties are not wakf properties at all. 4. It was also contended by the respondents that they and their predecessors have been in possession of the properties from 1900 onwards and that it was upheld by the authorities and that the suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the suit properties are not wakf properties at all. 4. The trial Sub Judge on a consideration of the documentary and oral evidence came to the conclusion that the suit properties originally were wakf properties and that the inam was subsequently enfranchised by the Government and hence the Pallivasal lost all their rights therein. Further, the respondents have established their possession of the suit properties for more than 60 years prior to 1.4.1960 as contemplated under S. 8(2)(i)(a) of the Act and that the respondents and their predecessors have even prior to 1.8.1947 perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession. The title of the Board was lost or extinguished and the suit is barred by limitation. Consequently the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed A.S. No. 1200 of 1979 before this court and the appellant was unsuccessful. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff mainly contended that the finding of the learned single Judge of this Court as well as the trial sub Judge, relying on the decision in Chinnappa Goundarv. S. Seshadri AIR 1981 Madras 8, that the civil court cannot go into the question of title when once patta was granted by the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 98 L.W. 849 = AIR 1986 S.C. 794 which arose against the decision of this court in State of Madras v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 1969-II M.L.J. 281. According to the learned counsel, in view of the said decision, the decision relied on by the learned single Judge, as well as other decisions where similar view was taken, were no longer good law. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the decision in Ramanujam Kavirayar, T.K. v. Sri Lakshmi Sivaprakass Pandara Sannathi Avargal 1988-2 L.W. 513. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the decision in Ramanujam Kavirayar, T.K. v. Sri Lakshmi Sivaprakass Pandara Sannathi Avargal 1988-2 L.W. 513. The said decision arose on a reference made by learned single Judge Shanmugham, J., on the substantial question of law, namely, whether the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for declaration and injunction is barred by reason of the provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and Ex. B1 order granting patta for the defendant under S. 8(2)(ii) of the Act, in view of the conflicting decisions of the Division Bench of this court reported in Udaiyappan v. Karuppan 1982 T.N.L.J. 490 and Subramania Gurukkal v. Arulmighu Thirumaleswaraswami Deity 97 L.W. 243. The Division Bench held as follows: “The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1986 S.C. 794 was that the two decisions M. Chayanna v. Narayanan AIR 1979 S.C. 1320 and Chanchulakshmana v. Subramanya Reddy AIR 1980 S.C. 133 on the basis of which the later Division Bench consisting of V. Ramaswami and V. Ratnam, J. took their views have been held to be inapplicable to a case under the Madras Act 26 of 1948 and further the view of Ramanujam and Sengotuvelan, JJ. who had followed the earlier view of the Division Bench in the State of Madras v. Ramalingam Swamigal Madam 1969-II M.L.J. 281 stands confirmed. The later decision of V. Ramaswami and V. Ratnam, JJ. in Subramania Gurukkal v. Arulmighu Thirumaleswara Deity 97 L.W. 243 cannot, therefore, be considered how to be good law and it is therefore, not necessary to constitute any Full Bench to decide any conflict because the conflict now stands resolved by the latest decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam AIR 1986 S.C. 794 ” The ratio of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 98 L.W. 849 = AIR 1986 S.C. 794 is to the effect that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide questions of title is not ousted by the provisions of the Minor Inams. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam 98 L.W. 849 = AIR 1986 S.C. 794 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of this court in 1969-II M.L.J. 281 upholding the decision of this court that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, the finding of the learned single Judge as well as the trial court relying on the decision of this Court in Chinnappa Gounder v. S. Seshadri AIR 1981 Madras 8 that the civil court cannot go into the question of title when once patta was granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act, it not sustainable and accordingly we answer this question in favour of the appellant. 6. The question remains to be seen is whether the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties for over 60 years and have prescribed title and as such the suit is barred by limitation are correct. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to convince us as to how the said finding is not sustainable. We find that alienations in respect of the suit properties were effected by virtue of the documents Exs. B33 to B.41 which show that they were between 13.4.1872 and 9.12.1901. Further, in the proceedings in C.M.A. Nos. 484 of 1979 and 255 and 256 of 1973 on the file of the Inams Abolition Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Madurai, as is evidenced by Ex. B32 it was found that the respondents and their predecessors have perfected title to the properties by adverse possession from 1900 onwards. The respondents have produced voluminous documents to prove their title as well as enjoyment for more than 60 years prior to 1.4.1960. On the side of the respondents nine witnesses were examined, D.WS. 1 to 9, and they have categorically stated that they and their predecessors have been in possession in respect of the lands for 180 years and that during the said period, none of the vendors of the Pallivasal was ever in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The testimony of those witnesses was accepted by the court below and on a perusal of their evidence, we are also in agreement with the concurrent view expressed by the Courts below with regard to the trustworthiness of these witnesses. The testimony of those witnesses was accepted by the court below and on a perusal of their evidence, we are also in agreement with the concurrent view expressed by the Courts below with regard to the trustworthiness of these witnesses. We do not find any material in favour of the appellant to interfere with the concurrent finding or the courts below that the respondents have proved their long continuous possession at least from 1980. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, there is no indication in the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition Act that the properties belonging to a Wakf are totally exempt or are not covered by the provisions of the Act. Further, the learned single Judge rightly held that S. 59-A introduced by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Amendment Act 1982 (Act 34 of 1982) cannot assist the appellant in any way getting over the bar of limitation, as it is seen that even prior to August 1947 the predecessors-in-title of the respondents have prescribed title. In the fare of the voluminous issue oral and documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to challenge the same. On the other hand, we find that the concurrent finding rendered by the Courts below that the respondents and their predecessors have been in possession at least for over 60 years prior to 1.4.1960 is perfectly legal and correct and no interference is called for in this appeal. In view of the above finding, the appeal has to be dismissed even though the finding, with regard to the jurisdiction of civil court by the courts below, is reversed by this court. 7. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed and this appeal fails and stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.